Re: [PATCH 4/5] arm64: dts: qcom: qcs8300: enable pcie0 for QCS8300

[Tingwei Zhang <quic_tingweiz@quicinc.com>]

On 11/15/2024 3:03 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 02:42:47PM +0800, Tingwei Zhang wrote:
>> On 11/15/2024 2:26 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 12:59:12PM +0800, Tingwei Zhang wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/2024 9:03 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>> On 14.11.2024 1:10 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 05:54:08PM +0800, Ziyue Zhang wrote:
>>>>>>> Add configurations in devicetree for PCIe0, including registers, clocks,
>>>>>>> interrupts and phy setting sequence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ziyue Zhang <quic_ziyuzhan@quicinc.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>     arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8300-ride.dts |  44 +++++-
>>>>>>>     arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8300.dtsi     | 176 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>     2 files changed, 219 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8300-ride.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8300-ride.dts
>>>>>>> index 7eed19a694c3..9d7c8555ed38 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8300-ride.dts
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8300-ride.dts
>>>>>>> @@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ vreg_l9c: ldo9 {
>>>>>>>     &gcc {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The patch doesn't seem to update the gcc node in qcs8300.dtsi. Is there
>>>>>> any reason to have the clocks property in the board data file?
>>>>>
>>>>> Definitely not. Ziyue, please move that change to the soc dtsi
>>>>
>>>> Gcc node is updated in board device tree due to sleep_clk is defined in
>>>> board device tree. Sleep_clk is from PMIC instead SoC so we were requested
>>>> to move sleep_clk to board device tree in previous review [1].
>>>
>>> Note, the review doesn't talk about sleep_clk at all. The recent
>>> examples (sm8650, x1e80100, sa8775p) still pull the clocks into the SoC
>>> dtsi, but without the freq.
>>>
>> It's begining of the discussion of the PMIC clock for SoC. Sleep clock
>> specific discussion is here [2].
>> [2]https://lore.kernel.org/all/be8b573c-db4e-4eec-a9a6-3cd83d04156d@kernel.org/
> 
> Please note how the recent platforms describe those clocks: the node in
> the SoC dtsi, the frequency in the board dtsi. X1E80100 is a step
> backwards, the clock are completely defined in the x1e80100.dtsi. There
> seems to be no strict rule on how to handle board clocks. I've sent an
> RFC patchset, trying to move them to a single logical location. Let's
> see what kind of response it will get. We probably need to define and
> follow a common rule for all Qualcomm platforms. Please give it a couple
> of days for the dust to settle. However, I think there should be no
> reason to keep GCC's clock definitions in the board DTS.
> 
Thanks for the clean up patch and make it consistent.

Is it reasonable for GCC's clock definition to refer xo_clk/sleep_clk in 
board device tree? Theoretically, can we have another board has 
different xo_clk say xo1_clk defined in board device tree?

>>>>
>>>> [1]https://lore.kernel.org/all/10914199-1e86-4a2e-aec8-2a48cc49ef14@kernel.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Konrad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tingwei
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> linux-phy mailing list
>>>> linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
>>>> https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Thanks,
>> Tingwei
> 


-- 
Thanks,
Tingwei

-- 
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy